[quote="denverlouie"]MIN30, HABEAS C respectfully, MY APOLOGIES here, you are asolutely correct; I should say it all in two words to sum up my thoughts on the issues presented; but then I would risk banishment for word selection, if I'm not careful for sure in such an abridged comment. It sure is tempting at times. I'll try it in the future, see how it goes with 3 words, as one or two may not cut it.

MY APOLOGIES again, thanks.[/quote]

I don't believe I commented on the length of your posts, only your apparent desire to receive thumbs down to in order to validate your need to be the conservative voice of dissent regardless of topic. While I find that sad, I think you should be able to write all the dissertations you wish. Nevertheless, you owe me no apology as I believe you're simply confused about who authored what comment. HC--

Having some kind of rating system's OK, I guess, but why should you have it so that your post disappears if you get too many thumbs-down? What, do I get a cookie if I get a lot of thumbs-up? How about you let the forum participants THEMSELVES decide if they want to view a particular posters efforts (by ignoring them if they find them so offensive).

BikerTrucker wrote:Having some kind of rating system's OK, I guess, but why should you have it so that your post disappears if you get too many thumbs-down? What, do I get a cookie if I get a lot of thumbs-up? How about you let the forum participants THEMSELVES decide if they want to view a particular posters efforts.

The problem is that in most cases the post is being rated, not on the quality of its contents, but on its politics, on whose side it is. At the least, the thumbs downers should have to give some idea of what their basis is. Identifying the thumbs downers would be quite helpful. It seems downright silly that a person who goes to the trouble of explaining his criticism has to identify himself but the person who isn't willing to go to that trouble does not have to. The rule serves no intelligent or practical purpose but does stick out as a sore "thumb". I can't think of a rational defense for the policy, and I have the impression that the moderators can't either.

''CHILDREN ARE GOD'S WAY OF BRINGING DOWN A BIT OF HEAVEN INTO THE MIDST OF OUR WORLDINESS''